tvc184

Let's see, Bryant says we need to focus on personal responsibility and Sharpe says that he simply hasn't read enough. Hmmm.........

Absolutely correct. If I was hiring someone to represent me, I would not hire someone that says something that I don't like.

I was going to say that. O'Reilly tries to give other opinions a chance. Carlson is Hannity in another form. I think the left is going from the frying pan to the fire.

Well, that's one..........

Maybe yes, maybe no. Most police schools that I have gone to say the people are wannabes until they pull the trigger. We had a case of a funny wannabe gang with a funny name a few years ago and some of the kids at school laughed at them. Then they shot up a house when angry at someone, got the wrong house and killed an innocent woman with children. I guess they were no longer wannabes. Just sayin'........

Freedom of the speech does not mean that the police have to release details of ongoing investigations to the public. If the press or anyone else finds out about it, it is generally okay to publish it with I believe some laws on national security being protected even under the First Amendment. The public might be shocked to know what the police know that is not public.

A 17 year old is an adult in Texas. A juvenile 14-16 can be certified in court to stand trial as an adult and if so, the name can be release. There is no provision in the law to release a name by the seriousness of the crime. I am not sure what to do about the "lose your rights" comment. There are no rights coming into play here on the release of a name. It is a matter of statutory law, not "rights".

Maybe. Then BG can tell me what he says.

BG needs to watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBCand gets some new accusations. This one didn't pan out................

Because generally you need a victim to step forward and say "I have been wronged and I want to file charges". Apparently that does not exist in this case. Let's say your brother took $5 out of your wallet without asking. It is clearly theft and crime or moral turpitude that could end many future or current employment. If you get it square with him and say that you do not wish to pursue any criminal charges, should the police step in and force you to testify against your brother? On a personal belief I think that charges need to be filed if there is a big crime but that is between the parties involved. Criminal charges are not automatic because someone thinks that you can prove a crime.

It is not relevant in relation to United's actions. It makes some of us feel better that a person that is probably a dirtbag got what he deserved. It is like seeing a couple of guys assault someone and it is clear that the assault was a crime... but finding out that the guy that was beaten was a child molester and ruined the lives of several children. It is better to see a vile person suffer than a truly nice person. Maybe you could reduce it to one word... karma. Legally? No bearing. Feeling? Good riddance.

Very timely thread by BG. Guess the Dems need to go back to the drawing board............

It is just as cool as when the Dems had Congress and voted Obamacare into law with not a single Republican vote from either house.

Zimmerman might be a racist. I can't read his mind, although I am sure that you can. The rest is just unproven and likely untrue nonsense.

And none that showed Zimmerman did anything illegal. Crazy how that works...........

I would love to see many things done. My biggest concern by far was the makeup of the SCOTUS. With my comparison to Hillary however, the bar can be set very low. To outdo a potential Hillary administration, victory will be achieved if Gorsuch is confirmed. Anything else in the next 3 years and 10 months is dessert.

I was never for Trump. I did not want him to be the nominee for the Republicans and would have likely chosen 15 of the other 16 candidates over him. But he and all others outclass Hillary. If Gorsuch gets approved for the SCOTUS, I will call it winning. If Trump gets another similar pick to replace a retiring Ginsburg, I will call it game-set-match and a very successful presidential term.

Franken was particularly stupid in his questioning about politics. To paraphrase it..... Gorsuch said he could not be swayed by politics as a judge so he would not comment on political appointments. In response Franken said gibberish like Gorsuch work on some campaign in (get this) 1976, then helped some Republicans in the mid 90's and blah blah.... Gorsuch shut him down but he has been a federal judge for only the last 10 years, not 20 years ago or 40 years ago. He never said that he never voted or never worked on a campaign. He said that as a federal judge he could not comment. Franken is too stupid to realize (or perhaps pure political BS) that what he did as a private citizen was not the same nor could be the same as the he did as a judge for the last 10 years. I guess by Franken's thinking, his headlines for me would be, police officer admits to theft. Yep, on my polygraph/lie detector to be a police officer, I admitted to stealing a bag of Fritos when I was 15 years old.

But liberals complain about liberals? Yep, tons of Hillary is horrible or Obama sucked threads from the libs............

I love that compilation......

Obama - Great talker with absolutely no substance but a lot of complaining with laughter to follow from him. Trump - Great locker room talk with a little substance but no plan other than "believe me". Hillary - One of the most fake politicians that I have ever seen. She is simply horrible and she is entirely unbelievable when she speaks. Take the (D) from in front of her name or her married name itself and she doesn't get 10% of votes from any race even in her own party. She rides the coattails of her husband to the max. Harry Reid - I don't know if I have ever seen anything he has said that resembles a speech but he has the complaining of Obama and Trump but with some much anger built up that he seems evil and disingenuous.

For the ones listed, none of the above. Comey doesn't give speeches. Testimony is not a speech.

Interesting that we posted a few seconds apart and used a form of the word coherent.

Reply to what...... Rachel Maddow? Beauty in the beast? White milk? James Comey? How about a coherent question. I understand that you are for a different viewpoint but how does a person respond to that? How about..... Russian hacking? Donna Brazile? Rigged Democratic process?